Wong Woo Yiu vs. Vivo

A marriage contracted abroad, which is valid under the law of the country where it was celebrated, is valid in the Philippines only if the foreign law is pleaded and proved; in the absence of such proof, the foreign law is presumed to be the same as Philippine law. Because petitioner failed to prove Chinese marriage law, the alleged marriage before a village leader, which would not be valid under Philippine law, could not be recognized.

Petitioner Wong Woo Yiu alias Ng Yao sought admission to the Philippines as a non-quota immigrant on the basis of her alleged marriage to Perfecto Blas, a Filipino citizen. The immigration authorities conducted proceedings to determine her admissibility. The case involves the application of Philippine law on family relations and the rules on proof of foreign law in immigration proceedings.

Petitioner Wong Woo Yiu alias Ng Yao arrived in the Philippines in 1961 and sought admission as a non-quota immigrant, claiming to be the lawful wife of Perfecto Blas, a Filipino citizen. In proceedings before the Board of Special Inquiry in June 1961, petitioner declared that she was married to Perfecto Blas in Chingkang, China on January 15, 1929, before one Chua Tio, a village leader, and that they had several children, all of whom were not in the Philippines.

On June 28, 1961, the Board of Special Inquiry No. 3 rendered a decision finding petitioner legally married to Perfecto Blas and admitting her into the country as a non-quota immigrant. This decision was affirmed by the Board of Commissioners on July 12, 1961, of which petitioner was duly notified.

However, on June 28, 1962, the same Board of Commissioners, now composed entirely of a new set of members, rendered a new decision motu proprio, reversing the earlier decision and ordering petitioner's exclusion. The Board found that petitioner's claim of marriage was "bereft of substantial proof of husband-wife relationship." The Board noted that in Perfecto Blas's entry proceedings on January 23, 1947, he declared that he first visited China in 1935 and married petitioner in 1936, which contradicted petitioner's claim of marriage in 1929. In an affidavit dated August 9, 1962, Perfecto Blas claimed he went to China in 1929, 1935, and 1941, although in his re-entry declaration he admitted first going to China in 1935, then 1937, 1939, and lastly 1941. Blas also claimed he first went to China when he was four years old, which, computed from his birth in 1908, would have been 1912.

The Board of Commissioners found that the only basis for petitioner's claim was "a mass of oral and documentary evidence bereft of substantial proof of husband-wife relationship," and that the record was "punctured with so many inconsistencies which cannot but lead one to doubt their veracity concerning the pretended marriage in China in 1929."

• Validity of Marriage: Petitioner argued that her marriage to Perfecto Blas before a village leader in China in 1929 was valid and should be recognized in the Philippines, and that the decision of the Board of Special Inquiry No. 3 admitting her as a non-quota immigrant should be upheld.
• Finality of Decision: Petitioner sought to compel the respondents to respect the earlier decision of the Board of Special Inquiry No. 3, as affirmed by the Board of Commissioners, through a petition for mandamus.

• Lack of Substantial Proof: Respondents argued that petitioner's claim of marriage to Perfecto Blas was without basis in evidence, being "bereft of substantial proof of husband-wife relationship," and that the inconsistencies in the statements of petitioner and her alleged husband justified the reversal of the earlier admission decision.
• Non-Recognition of Foreign Marriage: Respondents contended that even if the marriage was valid in China, it could not be recognized in the Philippines because no proof of Chinese marriage law was presented, and in the absence of such proof, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as Philippine law, which does not recognize a marriage before a village leader.

• Validity of the Marriage: Whether petitioner's alleged marriage to Perfecto Blas before a village leader in China in 1929 is valid and recognizable in the Philippines.
• Proof of Foreign Law: Whether the Board of Commissioners correctly applied the rule that in the absence of proof of foreign law, it is presumed to be the same as Philippine law.

• Validity of the Marriage: No. The alleged marriage before a village leader in China in 1929 cannot be recognized in the Philippines because no proof of Chinese marriage law was presented, and in the absence of such proof, the foreign law is presumed to be the same as Philippine law, which requires marriage to be solemnized by authorized officers.
• Proof of Foreign Law: Yes. The Board of Commissioners correctly applied the rule that foreign law must be pleaded and proved, and in the absence of such proof, it is presumed to be the same as domestic law.

• Validity of the Marriage: The Court found that the record was "punctured with so many inconsistencies" in the statements of petitioner and Perfecto Blas regarding their alleged marriage, which "cannot but lead one to doubt their veracity concerning the pretended marriage in China in 1929." The Court noted that there was no documentary evidence to support the alleged marriage. Furthermore, under Article 15 of the new Civil Code, laws relating to family rights or to the status of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines even though living abroad. In 1929, for a marriage celebrated in the Philippines to be valid, it must be solemnized by a judge of any court inferior to the Supreme Court, a justice of the peace, or a priest or minister of the gospel of any denomination duly registered in the Philippine Library and Museum (Public Act 3412, Section 2). A village leader is not among these authorized officers.
• Proof of Foreign Law: The Court addressed the contention that under Section 4 of General Orders No. 68, as reproduced in Section 19 of Act No. 3613, now Article 71 of the new Civil Code, a marriage contracted outside the Philippines which is valid under the law of the country where it was celebrated is also valid in the Philippines. However, the Court held that no validity can be given to this contention because no proof was presented relative to the law of marriage in China. Citing Yam Ka Lim vs. Collector of Customs, Lim and Lim vs. Collector of Customs, and Miciano vs. Brimo, the Court applied the general rule that in the absence of proof of the law of a foreign country, it should be presumed to be the same as our own. Since Philippine law only recognizes a marriage celebrated before any of the officers mentioned therein, and a village leader is not one of them, petitioner's marriage, even if true, cannot be recognized in this jurisdiction.

• Presumption of Identity of Foreign Law — In the absence of proof of the law of a foreign country, it is presumed to be the same as the domestic law on the same subject. The Court applied this rule to hold that since petitioner failed to prove Chinese marriage law, the alleged marriage before a village leader, which would not be valid under Philippine law, could not be recognized.
• Proof of Foreign Law — The statutes of other countries or states must be pleaded and proved the same as any other fact; courts cannot take judicial notice of what such laws are. The Court applied this rule to reject petitioner's claim that her marriage was valid under Chinese law, as no proof of such law was presented.

• "The only basis in support of the claim that she is the wife of Perfecto Blas is a mass of oral and documentary evidence bereft of substantial proof of husband-wife relationship." — This passage, quoted from the Board of Commissioners' decision, states the finding that petitioner's claim of marriage lacked substantial evidentiary support, which the Court found to be supported by the record.
• "The statutes of other countries or states must be pleaded and proved the same as any other fact. Courts cannot take judicial notice of what such laws are. In the absence of pleading and proof the laws of a foreign country or state will be presumed to be the same as our own." — This passage, citing Yam Ka Lim vs. Collector of Customs, articulates the controlling rule on proof of foreign law, which the Court applied to reject petitioner's claim of a valid foreign marriage.
• "Since our law only recognizes a marriage celebrated before any of the officers mentioned therein, and a village leader is not one of them, it is clear that petitioner's marriage, even if true, cannot be recognized in this jurisdiction." — This passage states the Court's conclusion that the alleged marriage, even if valid in China, could not be recognized in the Philippines because the applicable foreign law was not proven and the presumption of identity of laws applies.

• Yam Ka Lim vs. Collector of Customs, 30 Phil. 46 — Cited as authority for the rule that foreign statutes must be pleaded and proved, and in the absence of such proof, they are presumed to be the same as domestic law.
• Lim and Lim vs. Collector of Customs, 36 Phil. 472 — Cited for the proposition that in the absence of anything to the contrary, foreign law is presumed to be the same as domestic law on the same subject.
• Miciano vs. Brimo, 50 Phil. 867 — Cited for the rule that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, foreign laws on a particular subject are presumed to be the same as those of the Philippines.

• Article 15, New Civil Code — Provides that laws relating to family rights or to the status of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines even though living abroad. The Court applied this to hold that Philippine law on marriage governs the recognition of petitioner's alleged marriage.
• Section 2, Public Act 3412 — Lists the officers authorized to solemnize a marriage in the Philippines in 1929: a judge of any court inferior to the Supreme Court, a justice of the peace, or a priest or minister of the gospel of any denomination duly registered in the Philippine Library and Museum. The Court applied this to show that a village leader is not an authorized officer.
• Section 4, General Orders No. 68, as reproduced in Section 19 of Act No. 3613, now Article 71 of the New Civil Code — Provides that a marriage contracted outside the Philippines which is valid under the law of the country in which it was celebrated is also valid in the Philippines. The Court held this provision inapplicable because no proof of Chinese marriage law was presented.

Bengzon, C.J., Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concurred.